20010004 Ver 1_Complete File_20001227

r.4 9
010004

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
December 15, 2000
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
`401IS8w
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
?1 E M

Subject: Duplin County, Replacement of Bridge No. 181 over Limestone Creek on
SR 1702, Federal Project No. BRZ-1702(1), State Project No. 8.224160 1, T.I.P.
No. B-2959.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 181 will be replaced on existing alignment with a new bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length and 8.5 meters (28 feet) in width. During
construction traffic will be on existing secondary roads. Jurisdictional wetland impacts of
0.10 ha (0.25 ac) as described in the attached Categorical Exclusion Action Classification
Form were based on the entire right-of-way width. Following the final project design, we
updated the wetland impacts based on actual footprint of the project. These actual impacts
to the wetlands at the site are 0.02 acres. At the request of the North Carolina Wildlife
esources Commission (WRC), there will be a moratorium of in-stream work from April
l _nd September 30 to protect anadromous fish.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
.requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in
accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Volume 61,
Number 241.
Bridge No. 181 is located on SR 1702 over Limestone Creek in Duplin County. It
has eight spans totaling 138 feet in length. The deck and bridge railings for the
! 01

superstructure are composed of concrete. The substructure is composed of entirely of
timber. The bridge rail will be removed without dropping it into Waters of the U.S.
There is p"onti`or components of the deck to be dropped into Waters of the U.S.
during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is
approximately 13.6 yd3.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 extension 288.
cerely,
q,. William . Gilmore, P.E., Manager
L
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. David Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Terry Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Wayne Elliott, PD & EA Unit Head
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2959
State Project No. 8.2241601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1702(1)
A. Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 181 on SR 1702 over Limestone
Creek in Duplin County. The existing structure will be replaced with a new bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The bridge width will be a total of
8.5 meters (28 feet), including two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot)
shoulders on each side. Approach work will consist of resurfacing and widening the
roadway to two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.8 meter (6 foot) shoulders, and
installing guardrail where appropriate. The project length will be approximately
107 meters (350 feet). Traffic will be detoured along SR 1961, SR 1962, and NC 24
during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 181 has a sufficiency rating of 59.3 out of 100. A recent inspection
revealed that the bridge required prompt repair. The sufficiency rating was raised after
work was done on the timber substructure. Any drop in deck, superstructure, or
substructure rating would cause the sufficiency to fall below 50. The structure is a
two lane bridge with 7.3 meters (24 feet) of bridge roadway width. Modern design
standards specify a width of 8.5 meters (28 feet). The bridge is posted with a weight
restriction of 21 tons for single vehicles and 31 tons for TTST's. The "Do-nothing"
alternate is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing
bridge completely deteriorates. Continued rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical. For these reasons, Bridge No. 181 needs to
be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
The improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
. ,

c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
Or. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Makin- minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
0 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Od Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
S. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UNIT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's)
will be included and properly maintained during project constriction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
r
A construction moratorium on in-water work will be observed from April 1 to
September 30 of the construction year in order to protect anadromous fish.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 475,000
Right of Way $ 26,000
Total $ 501,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 900 VPD
Year 20.18 - 1,600 VPD
TTST - 1 %
DUAL - 2%
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes
Shoulders - 1.0 meter (3 feet) wide on the bridge
1.8 meter (6 foot) wide on approaches
Design Speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division 3 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of replacing the bridge
in place and detouring traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists pDly of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be Completed.
t

ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? F1 x
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
X
1:1 -
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? IX:11 (4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x - 0
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? I x
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely -
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters
(HQW)`' -?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ,l'
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? j x
r
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) 'If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any N/A
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? ---
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? Lj X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
u X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property?
i a
x
i
a

(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? U a
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, x n
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990) ? - u
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? F] X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing I I
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? F
-1 X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? x
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for -;
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? L J J\
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl 1 X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation - - -
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for r j _X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
In response to question 3, a construction moratorium on in-water work will be
observed from April 1 to September 30 of the construction year in order to protect
anadromous fish.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2959
State Project No. 8.2241601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1702(1)
Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 181 on SR 1702 over Limestone
Creek in Duplin County. The existing structure will be replaced with a new bridge
approximately 46 meters (150 feet) in length at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The travelway on the bridge will be two
33 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders on each side. Approach work
will consist of resurfacing and widening the roadway to two '3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes
with 1.8 meter (6 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The project
length will be approximately 107 meters (350 feet). Traffic will be detoured along
SR 1961, SR 1962, and NC 24 during construction.
(See the attached location map.)
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager
.Planning & Environmental Branch
Y /5-7 7 Acir ,Ye-
Project Planning nit Head
Date
Date Pr ' tanning gineer
For Type 11 (B) projects only: n
4(--? q-Y7
Date Division Administrator
1 Federal Highway Administration

' N

1702

1727 5
9 N 5 1725
5 1• r
4 .4 r
1701 1702 • 37-19 e • 6 . 1
? 1 r ?\
, > 1961
1702 E .9
?' 1963 rn
1962 ? • 1724 - '
3 6
- 1833
7^ = . 9 1724.6
? 1961 1 r,1800 ,+I
1 %4 1900
1961 ,
1 • 1965 1. 11
• ,- a lacia«n 1804
'
18
"o 1986 Stop
• 8 • I A
1953 • , D Y
_ . 1 l 1802
a ; • 1966 1813
1954 &0 -
Olive.
alrpso h '
Il• 1a 1 dll 1802
Faison Albertson
r• , I s • •I 1 ? ?
o+dens Korne,ay, 1 r 1967 • 7
T • ' 19657
11 as1.
1 l l 1 t 1984
watiaw_ }- / h S aJ?
It I ey ?• 13 s ..,? ^ Kenansville I a , Pott - 4j
IM r©7 I 1 u Hill 1. 1802• , ? 18
l I• eula.dl 13 1 1 1
D U P L Z N N 10 I
' Ma,noh \c 1 tt n 50 jn /14 ,
, II Ili s Lyman
1 .1
Rose Hill ` . Chino spin Cat'
'OP 5 s reenevar 2
1 ©10 41
TeaUer,\ t ®' Cypress I
Ir t Ti C,ly Creek 1
11 -Wallasq ,?
- - -_a
Studied Detour Route
North Carolina
; e Department Of Transportation
- t Planning & Environmental Branch
DUPLIN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 181 ON SR 1702
OVER LIMESTONE CREEK
B-295'9
2 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
e
Figure i
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
??yyy',. ?iN(
77~NN ,C ??? 7
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 30, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 181 on SR 1702 over Limestone
Creek, Duplin County, B-2959, ER 97-7215
Dear Mr. Graf:

Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
September 5, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Jeff Ingham of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on September 20, 1996, to
discuss the project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
0:?z
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507 g3
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Si ely,
avi Br ok
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: F. Vick
C. Bruton
T. Padgett

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOvm,4OR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
6 February 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Mark A. Hartman, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit

SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 181 over Limestone Creek, SR
1702, Duplin County. Federal Aid Project BRZ-1702 (1),
State Project No. 8.22 41601, TIP B-2959.
ATTENTION: Jeff Ingham, Project Manager
Bridge Unit
The purpose of this document is to describe and inventory the natural resources
identified within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
This document addresses four issues pertinent to the development of a Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for the proposed project: water resources, biotic
resources, wetlands, and federally protected species. Recommendations are made for
measures which will minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing design concepts. If preliminary design
parameters change, additional field investigation may be necessary.
The proposed project calls for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 181 on
SR 1702, over Limestone Creek Duplin County. There is only one alternate being
considered for this project, That alternate consists of replacement, in place, with a new
bridge, and an off-site detour. Project length is 122 m (400 ft), existing right- of-way
(ROW) width is ditchline-to-ditchline and proposed ROW is 24 m (80 ft).
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed project alignment on
27 June 1996 by NCDOT biologists Mark Hartman and Bruce Ellis. Plant communities
were identified and recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques, including habitat evaluation, active searching and recording identifying
signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks and burrows).
NO,
2
Prior to a site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project area
was gathered and reviewed. Information sources include; U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle maps (Climax and Pleasant Garden),, National Wetlands Inventory
Maps (NWI), NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:2500), Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) [formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)]
soil maps (Duplin County, 1959), NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Duplin County (1996), US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) list of protected species and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigated. Project study area (study area) denotes the
area bounded by the proposed ROW limits. Project vicinity describes an area
extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area. Project region is
equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map [163.3 sq.
km (61.8 sq. mi)], with the project as the center point.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical
characteristics of the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality aspects of the water resources present within the project
area. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
Waters Impacted
One water resource, Limestone Creek, will be impacted by the subject project.
The study area is 0.3 km (0.2 mi) upstream from the confluence of Limestone Creek
and the Northeast Cape Fear River. Limestone Creek is a typical Coastal Plain
blackwater stream. It is 15 m (49 ft) wide and up to 2 m (6 ft) deep. Substrates are a
mix of sand, silt, and gravel, and there is an abundance of allochthonous organic
material in the form of leaf packs and woody debris. As is typical of Coastal Plain
streams, there is a relatively well-defined channel with extensive floodplain wetlands
fanning out upstream and downstream of the bridge. Because of its geographic
location and morphological characteristics, Limestone Creek is considered by the NC
Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of
Marine Fisheries, to be anadromous fish spawning habitat.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) now known as the Division of Water Quality
3
(DWQ). The best usage classification for unnamed tributaries is the same as that
applied to the named section into which the unnamed tributary flows. This
classification scheme allows for protection of waters downstream from unnamed and
intermittent streams. The Best Usage Classification for Limestone Creek (DEM index
18-74-23) is C, with the supplemental classification of Sw. Class C refers to waters
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture. Sw (Swamp water) is a supplemental water classification including
waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different
from adjacent streams. No High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DWQ
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macro invertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites.
Macro invertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. No BMAN sites occur within the project vicinity.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no NPDES permitted
dischargers within the project vicinity.
Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources include increased sedimentation,
decreases in dissolved oxygen, and changes in temperature which may result from
construction in and around the water bodies in the project area.
Sedimentation is the most serious threat to the waters impacted by the proposed
action. Not only is sedimentation detrimental to the aquatic ecosystem, but changes in
physical characteristics of the stream also occur. Sedimentation of the stream channel
causes changes in flow rate and stream course, which may lead to increased
streambank scour and erosion. Sedimentation also leads to increased turbidity of the
water column.
Removal of streamside canopy and removal/burial of aquatic vegetation results
in numerous impacts. Streamside vegetation is crucial for maintaining streambank
stability, controlling erosion and buffering water temperature, as well as contributing a
significant food source to the stream ecosystem. Aquatic vegetation serves an
important role in the stream ecosystem as food and shelter, as well as contributing to
stabilization of the bottom sediments.
4
Additionally, modification of the forested communities adjacent to the water
bodies crossed can disrupt the hydrological continuity of those stream systems.
Clearing and grading of these communities will cause changes in ground and surface
water exchanges between the associated streams. Landscape modification of the
forested communities will reduce the natural storage and infiltration of rainwater in the
community, which leads to increased peak stream flow and a greater potential for toxins
washed from impermeable surfaces to reach the stream.
Numerous pollutants have been identified in highway runoff, including various
metals (lead, zinc, iron etc.), nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) and petroleum (Gupta et
a/. 1981). The sources of these runoff constituents range from construction and
maintenance activities, to daily vehicular use. The toxicity of highway runoff to aquatic
ecosystems is poorly understood. Some species demonstrate little sensitivity to
highway runoff exposure, while other species are much more sensitive. The levels of
the toxins and the duration of the exposure are major factors determining the
ecosystem's response to runoff. Pollutant concentrations of receiving waters are
directly related to traffic volume. It is apparent that highway runoff can significantly
degrade the quality of the receiving water bodies, which in turn significantly affects the
ecosystems present.
Recommendations
Because Limestone Creek is anadromous fish spawning habitat, the "Draft
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage at Highway Crossings" must be followed. In
addition, the following recommended methods to reduce sedimentation and/or pollutant
loads have been shown to be efficient and cost effective, and should be implemented to
protect aquatic resources.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best Management Practices (BMP's) for
the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in riparian areas
• Reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams
• Curb & gutter elimination
• Reduction of runoff velocity
• Re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas
• Litter control
The use of any number of these methods will be effective in reducing water
quality degradation resulting from project construction. Other structural methods which
are effective at sedimentation/pollutant reduction which may be considered include:
• Wet detention basins
• Dry extended detention basins
• Infiltration systems
• Wetland creation
5
If stream channel relocation is required for any of the above mentioned impacts,
and if the stream relocation is greater than 30 m (100 ft) or greater than 15 m (>50 ft)
on one side, consultation with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) will be
required, per the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 USC 661-667d).
Relocated streams will be designed to have similar characteristics (depth, width,
meanders and substrate) as the original stream. This also includes re-establishment of
streamside vegetation.
Terrestrial Communities
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships
between vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats are
cited, along with brief descriptions of their respective "roles" within that community.
Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by (*) in the text. Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will include the
common name only.
There are two distinct terrestrial communities identified within the project area:
maintained roadside and blackwater swamp; however, there is always some degree of
overlap between communities. Community composition is reflective of the
physiography, topography and current and prior land uses of the area. All community
types have had some degree of past, or continued human disturbance. As a result of
disturbances, changes in vegetative dominance often occur within the community
types.
Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive and populate a variety of
habitats, therefore many of the species mentioned may occur in any number of the
different community types described. Other animals are tolerant of a narrow range of
environmental conditions and may be limited to a particular habitat type. These
species are the most vulnerable to habitat disturbance.
Maintained Roadside Community
The disturbed community consists of areas along roadways which have been
heavily impacted and maintained by human development activities. Such areas extend
out approximately 5 m (15 ft) on both sides of the existing roadway and border young
upland forests outside the ROW. Included also in this community is the ecotone area
that exists between the heavily maintained areas, and the unmaintained forests. This
ecotone area is less maintained and includes elements of both the heavily disturbed
6
community, and the undisturbed upland areas. Significant soil disturbance and
compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide application, keep this community
in an early successional state. Common herbaceous species in this community include
crown grass (Paspalum sp. ), crab grass (Digitaria sp. ), bluet (Houstonia sp. ), grape
(Vitis sp.), rabbit tobacco (Gnapthalium obtusifolium), English plantain (Plantago
rugellii), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), wild lettuce (Lactuca sp.), goldenrod
(Solidago altissima), smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), vervain (Verbena sp.),
Brasil pusley (Richardia brasiliensis), wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta), Queen Anne's lace
(Daucus carrota), lamb's quarters (Chenopodium album), maypops (Passiflora
incarnata), Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis), partridge pea (Cassia
fasciculata), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), cutleaf
evening primrose (Oenothera laciniata), peppergrass (Lepidium sp.), fescue (Festuca
sp.), wild rye grass (Elymus sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), red
mulberry (Morus rubra), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium).
Wildlife found in this community is limited and consists primarily of wide-ranging,
adaptable species. Other animals may use this area as a corridor for travel between
less disturbed habitats, or as a foraging area. Reptiles commonly found in disturbed
habitats include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) and black racer
(Coluber constrictor). Birds potentially found in disturbed habitats include American
robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), European starling
(Sturnus vulgaris) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Other avian species
commonly sighted in this community type include scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea),
yellow billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), common
crow (Corvus brachyrynchos), and prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor). Mammalian
species likely to frequent disturbed habitats include eastern cottontail (Sylvagus
floridanus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and hispid cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus).
Cypress Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
The blackwater cypress gum swamp and its associated floodplain community
contains plants such as bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), pond cypress (Taxodium
ascendens), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), butternut hickory (Carya cordiformis),
black willow (Salix nigra), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), river birch (Betula nigra), red
maple (Acer rubrum), American elm (Ulmus americana), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Asiatic
dayflower, ragweed, poison ivy, tearthumb (Polygonum saggitatum), and burreed
(Sparangium sp.).
Aquatic and amphibious species take advantage of the semi-permanent and
shallow permanent waters associated with blackwater swamps. Many crayfish species
7
(Decapoda) are able to occupy ditches and depressions that are seasonally de-watered
by burrowing into moist soil near the temporary water source. These areas also
support amphibian reproduction and are likely used by southern cricket frogs (Acris
gryllus) and green tree frogs (Hyla cinerea). Some fish find suitable habitat in these
areas and may even find refugia in the form of pools in which to wait out low or no flow
events. Piscine species such as the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), and
the eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea) are able to survive the low oxygen
conditions which accompany the warm, stagnant water which occur in these areas
Aquatic Communities
Limestone Creek is a coastal plain blackwater stream community which is
characterized by a sandy, silty substrate and warm, clear, tannin stained water. Flow
varies seasonally and with precipitation intensity. These streams are very low gradient
and are generally slow flowing. Scattered woody debris occurs within the channel and
along the shoreline. Dominant fauna found in these rivers or along the shoreline
includes a variety of aquatic and semiaquatic species. No fish were observed during
the site visit, but the stream could provide habitat for resident species such as shiners
(Notropis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), carp (Cyprinus carpio), and largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides). Other piscine inhabitants include species less sensitive
to low oxygen conditions such as longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), bowfin (Amia
calva), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), and chain pickerel (Esox niger). Amphibians
and reptiles expected to occur in this community include dwarf mudpuppy (Necturus
punctatus), lesser siren (Siren intermedia), greater siren (Siren lacertina), two-toed
amphiuma (Amphiuma means), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentaria), queen snake (Regina septemvittata),
and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources
have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
The plant communities found along the project alignment serve as shelter,
nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Loss of habitat initially
displaces faunal organisms from the area, forcing them to concentrate into a smaller
area, which causes over-utilization and degradation of the habitat. This ultimately
lowers the carrying capacity of the remaining habitat and is manifested in some species
as becoming more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
8
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed project length of 122 m (400 ft), and a proposed ROW of 24 m (80 ft).
Often, project construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less. Both alternates will impact the disturbed roadside
habitat and the blackwater swamp communities. Replacement of the bridge in place
with an off site detour on existing roads will impact 0.23 ha (0.58 ac) of disturbed
roadside habitat, and 0.10 ha (0.26 ac) of cypress-gum swamp. The disturbed
roadside community will be replaced by an equivalent community through re-vegetation
at project completion.
Aquatic Community Impacts
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source for many terrestrial
organisms such as raccoons, various species of snakes, birds, turtles and amphibians.
It also serves as a means of predator avoidance for many animals.
Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit feeders, and macro
and micro alga, are particularly sensitive to construction activities such as dredging,
filling, pile driving operations and slope stabilization. These construction activities
physically disturb the substrate, resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms. Many of
these aquatic organisms are slow to recover, or repopulate an area, because they
require a stabilized substrate for attachment. Substrate stability may take a long time
to develop, therefore, changes in community composition will occur.
Populations of photosynthetic species, the primary producers in the food chain,
can be greatly effected by siltation. The increased amount of suspended. particles in the
water column reduces the photosynthetic ability, by absorbing available light. Clogging
of feeding apparati of suspension feeders and burial of newly settled larvae of these
organisms, are other affects of siltation. These species are often primary consumers in
the food chain, and are a major step in the aquatic food web. Impacts to these
organisms may directly effect organisms higher in the food chain, such as fish,
amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects of siltation, however
gills of fish, crustaceans and larval amphibian and insect forms can become clogged
and dysfunctional as a result of sedimentation. Spawning habitats for these mobile
species may become filled with sediment, diminishing reproductive success and
inevitably reducing populations.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to aquatic
ecosystems. Best Management Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters,
must be strictly adhered to, to ensure the biological integrity of the water bodies
impacted by this project.
9
Waters of the United States
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be
considered a "wetland", the following three specifications must be met; 1) presence of
hydric soils, 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology,
including; saturated soils, stained leaves, oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation,
high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Waters of the United States will be impacted by the subject project. Field
surveys revealed that wetlands are present in the project area, with all three of the
wetland parameters present. Soils consist of sandy silt and have a color of 10YR 2/2
from 0-4 inches, and a color of 10YR 5/2 from 4-12 inches with 10 YR 5/6 mottles.
Evidence of hydrology includes sediment deposits on leaves drainage patterns, and
buttressed tree trunks. There is an abundance of hydrophytic vegetation in the project
area including bald cypress, pond cypress, river birch, orange jewelweed; Japanese
grass, and false nettle. The project will impact approximately 0.10 ha (0.26 ac) of the
cypress-gum swamp community.
Permits
A DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also required.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge into waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance Section 404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the Waters of the United States.
10
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency'
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
The COE District Engineer is required to determine whether any activity,
covered by the General Permitting Process, will result in more than minimal adverse
environmental effects. If the District Engineer determines that the adverse effects of
the proposed work are more than minimal, then the engineer will notify the prospective
permittee either:
(1) that the project does not qualify for authorization under nationwide permit and
that the permittee seek authorization under a pre-discharger notification (PDN)
or an individual permit, or;
(2) that the project is authorized under the nationwide permit subject to the
permittee submitting a mitigation proposal that would reduce the adverse
environmental effects to the minimal level.
This project will likely be authorized under a nationwide permit; however,
mitigation for impacts to wetlands and surface waters may be required by the COE due
to the quality of the wetlands likely to be impacted by the project.
Rare and Protected Species
Threatened or endangered species are species whose populations are in
decline and which face probable extinction in the near future without strict conservation
management. Federal law under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended, protects plant and animal species which have been classified as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or Proposed Threatened
(PT). Provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA require that any action which is
likely to adversely affect such federally classified species be subject to review by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other potentially endangered species may
11
receive additional protection under separate state laws. In North Carolina, protection
of endangered species falls under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C.
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and the N.C. Department of Agriculture,
respectively.
Federally-Protected Species
As of 23 August 1996, the FWS lists two federally-protected species for Duplin
County (Table 1). A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of
each species follows Table 1, along with a conclusion regarding potential project
impacts.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Duplin County.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A)
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
T(S/A) Species that is threatened due to similarity of experience with other rare
species and is listed for its protection.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) ENDANGERED
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back
of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain
at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60
years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30-50
ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds
12
the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately
38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
No nesting or foraging habitat, in the form of pine stands 30 years of age or
older with sparse undergrowth, was present within the project. The only forested
habitat potentially disturbed by this project is a blackwater swamp, and is not suitable
habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. In addition, the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no records of red-cockaded
woodpeckers occurring within 0.8 km (0.5 mi). Therefore the subject project will not
affect this species.
Alligator mississippiensis (American alligator) THREATENED (S/A)
The alligator is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to
section 7 consultation. The similar species, the American crocodile, is not found in
North Carolina.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Three Federal Species of Concern (FSC) species are listed by the FWS for
Duplin County as of 23 August 1996 (Table 2). Federal candidate species are not
afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. FSC species are defined as taxa for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not sufficient data to warrant a formal
federal listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and so should
be included for consideration.
In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded limited state protection under the NC State
Endangered Species Act and the -NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Species listed under state laws may or may not be federally-protected. Species with
state designations of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), and Watch List (W) are
not protected under state laws; however, evidence suggests that populations of these
species are also in decline.
Table 2 lists federal candidate species, the state status of these species (if
afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for
each species. This species list is provided for information purposes as the protection
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
13
Table 2. Federal candidate and N.C. protected species for Duplin County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Heterodon simus southern hognose snake SR yes
Procambarus plumimanus Croatan crayfish - SR yes
Dionaea muscipula venus flytrap C-SC no
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any
of these species observed. A review of the NCNHP data base of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in
or near the project study area.
cc: V. Charles Bruton,.Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File B-2959